The A.S. Council approved a set of stipend recommendations for the 2004-05 year that would reduce the total amount paid to councilmembers by more than $17,600. The recommendations were approved during the council’s April 21 meeting.

A.S. Vice President Internal and President-elect Jenn Pae said she will take the recommendations into account when preparing next year’s executive budget.

“I’m going to take some of those numbers, obviously because this year’s council put a lot of thought into it, and a lot of discussion,” Pae said. “It’s a recommendation, so it’s something that I’m taking into consideration.”

The decrease in stipends is due to a drop in expected interest from A.S. accounts, which collects in a short-term interest program, or S.T.I.P.

“We’re projecting that we’ll have about $45,000 to work with in S.T.I.P.,” Vice President Finance Eric Webster said. “We just couldn’t afford to pay the $61,000-worth of stipends, so a lot of positions had to get cut.”

Under the recommendations, executive and commissioner stipends would be reduced 10 percent, senators would receive 40 percent less, and each office would retain only one assistant, with the exception of the A.S. Programming Office, which is allocated three assistants. Council stipends would total $42,990.

A major point of debate regarding the recommendations revolved around senator stipends.

“Directly or indirectly, students are paying for the senator stipends,” Thurgood Marshall College freshman senator Alan Haimowitz said. “I know students care a lot about where their money goes, and I’m sure paying their senators may not be their number-one priority.”

Thurgood Marshall College Council Chair Travis Silva expressed the idea that senators be responsible to their individual colleges and not paid by the A.S. Council.

“They’re part of the college councils first and A.S. second, and I don’t think A.S. should be issuing them stipends,” Silva said. “I think it would save the student body a lot of money.”

Thurgood Marshall College junior senator Kate Pillon was generally pleased with the recommendations and said that the proportional cuts were fair.

“Stipends are just supposed to be a gesture, and I feel like if we’re extending that gesture to all the other main positions on A.S. … the senators shouldn’t be taken away from that,” Pillon said.

Another argument raised on behalf of senator stipends was that having senators on the university payroll enables them to use the A.S. golf cart and access resources such as a copy card.

Silva called the idea a “garbage argument” and claimed that he has checked out the A.S. cart and has been issued a copy card even though he does not hold a stipend position.

“They’re not worried about it with me, so why are they all of a sudden worried about it for senators?” Silva said.

While senator stipends remain a contentious issue, few councilmembers raised objections to stipends for executives and commissioners.

“It is my experience, at least, that commissioners and executive positions are running services, they’re actually performing jobs and tasks … that they have to perform during business hours and they find themselves at a real disadvantage in terms of getting a job,” Silva said.

Ultimately, the next A.S. Council has the power to approve or amend the stipend recommendations set forth in Pae’s budget.

Pillon said she would vote for a budget regardless of the amount of senator stipends.

“I feel like it would be a testament to us as senators to say, ‘You know what, we need to cut something and this is the best thing to cut right now, even if it means that we’re not stipended,’” Pillon said.

Webster expressed hope that a point has been reached where the amount allocated from S.T.I.P. is less than what is generated.

“I believe that this level of stipends is maintainable,” Webster said. “I think that next year we should see them be able to pay at least this much in stipends again, if not a little bit more.”

An attempt to pull the stipend recommendation from the Finance Committee in order to discuss the legislation on the council floor failed by a vote of 4-12-0. This forced the council to accept the committee’s recommendation to approve the item.